====== Faculty Only ======

{{indexmenu>.#1}}

  * {{:courses:isci320:faculty:classlist_2010w_isci320_201.pdf|2010W classlist with photos}}

===== Ideas & Reflections =====

Here are some things that did/didn't work in 2011w:
  * Worked: three "group seminars" instead of a single teacher talking about their research.  Instead, choose a relevant theme and each teacher spends ~10 minutes talking/sharing their perspective.  Interruptions should be encouraged.  Example topics:
    - how we got where we are (value: shows how chance and circumstance factor in - it's not all planned and it's ok if you haven't got a plan yet)
    - how we approach a research question
    - pick a specific topic and investigate (eg. cooperation).  This year we didn't involve all teachers but it would be better if we could
  * Worked: Morning review meetings scheduled with all faculty.  One group at a time, 15 minutes each.  Be careful to stick to schedule.
  * Worked: Morning feedback meetings with all faculty after each draft returned.
  * Didn't work: Web server.  Couldn't keep it up over Copperdome's unreliable connection.  Maybe try our own router?  
  * Out-group peer reviews of final drafts before final submission (eg. at noon).

Some older ideas:
  * provide a local server with shared editing for each group (eg. wiki or Editpad)
  * make criteria for each draft (not just final) clearer
  * suggest peer reviews before 2nd draft (but keep mandatory review just after)

On 2011-05-09 10:00 AM, Spiegelman, George wrote:
> 
> So finally I'll offer a few point about the structure of the course that could be improvements.
> 
> As probably unneeded justification, I'll note that 1) I've applied for somewhere around 100 grants myself and have a 90% success rate.  2) I've been on national grant panels and was asked to be chair of one (I turned it down to concentrate on teaching related stuff). 3) I taught a course in Environmental Sciences for 10 years and the basis of that course was preparation of grants.  I had lots of experience in getting students to think clearly.   4) I've had scads of students who I've mentored.  5) I actually know a lot about teaching partly through experimentation myself and much of it has been confirmed in my recent interaction with the Wieman Science Initiative.
> 
> 1. Picking the project.  The method used of having the instructors rotate to talk to the students works well because the subject of the discussion is broad.
> 
> 2. Showing students experimental design in lectures is not an effective method for learning.  In general lectures are not effective.  Where the students are novices in the topic, they will get lost in the terminology and fundamentals in the first few minutes and they learn little.
> 
> 
> The alternative is to create structured problems for the students to solve and then discuss that would get them to think about methodologies.
> 
> For example it would be fairly simple to create a problem about how to show whether a trait is due to a single or multiple genes that segregate along Mendelian patterns.  It would be easy to show sample graphs of enzyme assays that the students would be asked to interpret and would illustrate why total activity is important.  These problems would be done in the groups and would replace the evening lectures.  Students would work on them and then present and discuss answers.  It's not hard to do 3-4 in a 2 hour period.  The basic idea is that you need to get the students to do something rather than just listen.
> 
> It would be obviously necessary to decide what problems to do.  For example in ENVR 300, I included things like genetics, how to do a transect survey, how to do an enzyme assay or use antibody determination to measure amounts, how to assay ground water flow or air currents, how to measure things with a mass spectrometer and what to measure.  The topics could be decided using the interests that students list.
> 
> This methods part would need to include a description of the general rules about developing a model as a first step.  While I was impressed with the model love developed and I can imagine that is was lots of fun to develop it, I think it took them in the wrong direction because it included things they couldn't assay and it wasted time they needed to think about how to measure the variable.
> 
> 4. A general introduction to research and how to prove things would be useful.  I think this could be a form of pre-reading.  I showed Rik a book that we excerpted for ENVR 300, but there are lots of examples on line.  Such a book would discuss hypothesis testing type I and type II errors from stats, among other things.  I thought in general the groups we had this year were very sophisticated on this, much more so than an "average student" and this is part of my feeling that they marks for the projects were too low.
> 
> 5. The discussions with the instructors need to be figured out better.  In some cases these worked well.  However, when we got to the point where they were discussing experiments, I thought we ended up being detrimental to homosexuality, love and longevity and I think that's a serious problem.  Based on my experience with ENVR 300 my suggestion would be that there needs to be a format where the groups are required to write out and present the experiments to all instructors simultaneously.  This should happen every day.  This would remove the need to continually "start from the beginning" and going off on tangents where we describe things that are not related to their projects.  This reporting structure could happen with the students showing where they are at on flip charts, or a board.  Making them write it out is hugely beneficial.  Making them write it out as a summary on a board is even more beneficial.  At Copperdome, what could happen is that one of the rooms would be the conference room where the instructors would spend the morning-or the day and students would rotate through it.  Making the students show the flow charts, and link aims, predictions and conclusions from their experiments as they go through the week would sort out many problems.  In these sessions the instructors could clarify whether students can assume technical aspects of their proposals.  This would include whether a model would be useful.
> 
> 6. There needs to be a more standardized and explicit rubric for the quality of the report.  This should be distributed to the students.  There are lots of these on line that could be used as a starting point.
